SO all the moderate Rs voted against witnesses? Romney, murkowski and Collins et al?
Oh they just want to step in and save democracy at the last possible minute. What drama queens.
I know not address to me. But completely immaterial to Trumps bribery/extortion.
Ukraine has the DNC server. Donald Trump is concerned about corruption. Uh huh. The defense is grasping at straws because that’s all they have. It’s just more horseshit.
You know this counselor, when you can’t argue facts, you argue loop holes, redirect and confuse.
I think the smart move for Democrats is to wand this entire impeachment through. Let the Republicans have their sham ‘trial’ and let them own it – forever. Right now, in January of 2020, the public doesn’t support removing him from office and they never have - at least not enough of the public.
But impeachment is at least a matter of historical record, and when this president presides over disasters that threaten the future of this country, I think people will react, and they will look back at the fact that we had a chance to remove this pig - and one half of the senate chose to protect him.
Look, the fact is that, in a democracy, a lot of voters are dumb. We’re terrible at looking forward, but we’re pretty good at looking backward and blaming people of the past for whatever happened in the present. So let the Republicans own this. Reality will eventually catch up to them.
Confusion will be my epitaph
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back and laugh
But I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying.
Has anyone been following this “lawyer lawsuits” controversy?
The Trump defense team went apeshit on the House impeachment managers that the Dems would dare to undermine the Constitution by condemning “lawyer lawsuits.”
There’s only one problem. The impeachment managers were talking about “FOIA lawsuits” filed by third parties to compel the release of Administration emails.
I’m undecided if this was just another Trump-style tactic of flinging poo and distracting people, or if that one Trump lawyer has terrible hearing. You know the guy I’m talking about… I think his name is Jay Sexual.
I coined the term the “Bruce Willis Defense” earlier.
Basically, in a Hollywood action film, you’ll see the hero doing things like shooting a gun wildly while running or while racing in his car after the bad guys and, to the watcher, that seems fine because “anything is acceptable in the name of fighting evil!”
But that’s not how it works. If the cops did that, they’d be killing bystanders, left and right.
Also in Hollywood, and closer to the White House argument, you’ll see cops do things like try to turn a door knob, find it open, shrug, and enter without a warrant; they’ll beat on some punk, in an alleyway, and make him reveal the location of the drug kingpin; and the shifty looking guy with a gun in the airport, who the cop thinks is a bad guy following him… Well, when he gets him in a neck lock, hauls him into the bathroom, and proceeds to get into a fist fight, it’s always an actual bad guy, just like the hero thought (!), and not some random air marshal who he just accidentally assaulted.
“Anything is acceptable in the name of fighting evil” is BS. That’s not how it works, it isn’t how it should work, and it wouldn’t look like what the President’s been doing.
- Donald Trump may well have the personal opinion that Joe Biden and his son are crooks. But that’s an opinion not a fact and, until such a point as that becomes fact, he must behave in the same way as Lady Justice and presume the innocence of Joe Biden.
Extorting a country that is under attack, and partially occupied, by a much larger country by withholding money that they need to defend themselves, because you have the unproven opinion that some dude is guilty of a crime, is not kosher in a variety of ways. Even if we ignore the question of whether any non-psychopath could view it as a moral trade-off between fighting the corruption of one man and preventing the murder of innocents by an invading force, you still run into issues like that any results you get from your investigation were generated under duress and can’t be used as the basis of any honest inquiry.
-
Trump is not a law enforcement officer. He is not trained to be a law enforcement officer. We did not hire him to be a law enforcement officer. He has a duty to serve the role of President of the United States of America, not practice his vigilante hobby on our dime, during work hours. That is a dereliction of his duties and, while there are arguments that criminal behavior is required for impeachment, the history of the term “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” favors the idea that it would also include any conduct that was antithetical to the office and the Oath, including corruption, dereliction, criminal negligence, etc. The UCMJ is the Executive branch’s version of the law, as regards officers of the state. The view of what is and is not actionable misconduct in the eyes of the Executive is enshrined there and, when we judge the President, it should be according to the code of the Executive Branch more than against the statutes crafted by Congress, for application against the common citizen. (IMHO) In that legal framework, dereliction is a crime.
-
Neither Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parnas, nor Igor Fruman are law enforcement officers. If your defense is that you genuinely believe that a person committed a crime, it is completely insane to argue that - as a person who knows the phone number of the head of the FBI - your first instinct would be to call up the little old man who lives down the street, who was telling you the other day that he used to dream of being a cop, and giving him carte blanche to use your corporate credit card to go out there and investigate that shit. Versus the counterargument which is that you didn’t go to the cops because you had no belief in the crime, that you hired the old man - who is a professional propaganda artist - to go and create smear. And create that smear using other people’s money against your personal enemy.
-
Not only is the President not a law enforcement officer, nor are his friends, they’re all people with clear conflicts of interest in the matter. Let’s take an example of an actual police officer. Let’s say that it just so happens that Morgan is in a competition for becoming Captain of the Police Force with this one lady, and the woman just so happened to be accused of a crime exactly one day after the announcement about the vacancy was announced. The evidence just so happened to come in to Morgan’s phone. Usually it’s the cop who got the call who takes the case. What do you think, is his argument that the one lady is a crook, he’s a genuine police officer, and the call came straight to him is a viable argument against recusal?
Joe Biden can be factually guilty of anything and everything, but Donald Trump is the one person who may not - until a Federal court proclaims it so - mention, advance, nor even query the matter lest he unduly influence a matter that he would serve to gain or lose by.
- The crime proposed against Joe Biden is that his son laundered money into the United States and shared that money with his father, to convince him to cease investigations into Burisma. Rosemont, Hunter, and Joe are all American. Their Bank accounts are, quite likely, in America. All of the discussions to pursue a corrupt act of interference, between Hunter and Joe would have taken place in America. This would have taken place at a time when nearly everything Joe Biden did had great possibility of entering some official record.
Any investigation in Ukraine, by Americans, would be wildly hampered by the issue that the US has no subpoena power there nor any other investigative powers.
It is wildly implausible that you would begin your investigation by going to Ukraine. The only thing you could ever (non-corruptly) do is offer them some American evidence, if you had some, to implicate the Bidens and hope that they launch an investigation.
But see #1. It would never be the case that you would want them to announce said investigation. And you would never perform any actual investigations of your own there, since you can’t.
And, noting points 2-4, the person to hand American evidence to Ukraine would be the FBI, as part of their genuine investigation that they were conducting in the USA, based on their unbiased determination that there was just cause to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden.
- As regards “the server”, one should note that Trump was famously “totally exonerated” of working with Russia. And now here he is saying that he’s fighting that case? How do you fight a case in which you were “totally exonerated” and why is your version of fighting that case to be too try and get information about the cyber capabilities of Ukraine, to detect and monitor Russian activities? Why does it seem like the tale of “the server” seems to be the product of a man who is in jail for practicing corruption in Ukraine, and who was working with a Russian intelligence asset?
The defense raises the possibility that Ukraine attempted to interfere with the 2016 election, cites some public sources I need to check, and does some word lawyering of the July 25 call to claim Trump informally requested assistance for John Durham’s ongoing investigation at the DOJ… I think. Not sure if I agree with their interpretation of the call yet, but it appears superficially sound.
Corruption is what the defense says forms the rationale behind the mention of Biden/Burisma. I find myself agreeing that it may have been appropriate from a foreign policy perspective to “make clear both that the United States was not placing any inquiry into the incident off limits and that, in the future, there would be no efforts by U.S. officials to do something as “horrible” as strong-arming Ukraine into dropping corruption investigations while operating under an obvious conflict of interest.”
What I don’t see the defence try to justify in these later pages is what appears to be the President strong-arming Ukraine to pick up a corruption investigation while the President is operating under a clear conflict of interest. I think that is what you mean when you say the rationale behind the mention of the DNC and Biden/Burisma is irrelevant to a charge of extortion. But the quid pro quo is disputed earlier in the defense brief as the disowned consequence of Mr. Sondland’s dark soul. Sage Rat summarizes it well.
~Max
It doesn’t pass a test of relevance,for this trial though. You would have to entertain the idea that the importance of this thing is so exagerated it becomes risible, like the only venue for fighting corruption and the last chance to defeat evil is to hold a hammer over Ukraine?
There is no crime by the bidens; they are both running; toireup singled him out above other corruption he knows about, sanctions, admires, or participates in himself. What judge is going to buy into this gaslighting scheme?
Maybe I’m just too tired but what are you referring to with “this thing”? The DNC server? or the Biden/Burisma thing? or Sondland’s opinion? And what do you mean by “toireup”?
Sorry in advance…
~Max
Nadler just called them liars right there on the floor.
I, having commented on this earlier in one of these related threads, can answer at least this question.
drad dog has this cute schtick of mis-spelling Twerimup’s name in a different way every time he mentions it. He’s long since run out of all possible nearly-recognizable near-mis-spellings and has lately been advancing into ever-stranger permutations.
So, who or what is this “Tgmaglomp” (my mis-spelling 
) of whom drad dog speaks? Well, if it begins with T and ends with p, you needn’t ask. 
Amirite, dog ?
- And as regards the idea that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election, I’ll repeat what I’ve said before:
Foreign involvement in elections is okay. It is also an act of war. It strongly depends on the specifics, just as you would clearly differentiate between murder and self-defense, depending on the circumstances of what happened.
In general, I would argue that these are the rules for foreign involvement:
a) It is criminal for an American politician to work with a foreign government, in the aim of advancing his personal political campaign.
b) It is not criminal to work with a foreign national, under you as an employee, who is being paid by the hour. When you come out of that relationship, you are not owing the foreign national some debt and, with them not being an agent of the foreign government, they have no policy desires. They just want to get paid for their enterprise.
c) However, it would be criminal to use that person as a cut-out to work with a foreign government. It is no different than #1 at base, and only made worse by the extra subterfuge.
d) It is not criminal for a foreign person to publicize a crime that was committed against them by an American politician.
e) It is not criminal for a foreign news source to publicize the allegations of a crime that they are aware of.
f) It is not criminal for a foreign government to publicize allegations of a crime that they genuinely believe may have been committed by an American politician, which occurred on their soil. Ideally, they should protect that person’s innocence and simply pass the information to the US quietly, if it’s simply “allegations”, or request extradition if it’s more than that, but I don’t know that it’s reasonable to expect a foreign government to care too much about someone who committed crimes in their country and left, nor to expect every country to maintain the same “All are innocent until proven guilty” standard that we do. It may be slimy in some instances, but compare it to…
g) It is criminal for a foreign government to know about a crime committed by an American politician and maintain that in secret, for use as blackmail against him. And that goes a long way towards justifying any publications.
h) It is criminal for a foreign government to knowingly falsify allegations of a crime being committed by an American politician.
i) It is criminal for a foreign government to invade our country, break into our government buildings, and use the discovered information against us - even if that information is not fraudulent.
And so on.
The standard across all of these is the same standard that we use in criminal law. Did a criminal act take place (actus read)? Extortion? Fraud? Etc. And was there a criminal intent (mens rea)?
Truth and ensuring that criminals see their day in court are not evil acts. That surpasses borders.
Fraud, extortion, larceny, invasion, etc. are all crimes and, outside of invasion, that’s independent of borders. They’re just as much a crime if an American did it in America as for a foreign government to do it across borders against an American. It is not criminal to hire a PI. It would be criminal to hire a PI to break into your opponents house. It is not criminal to receive donations from a business. It is criminal to partner with a person to set up a sham business to serve as a cut-out for receiving illicit campaign contributions and laundering them through to the campaign.
Context matters.
American Oversight just received 192 pages of black bars and email headers from a FOIA lawsuit against OMB concerning the hold on Ukrainian security aid. I just skimmed the first 10 or so pages. Almost everything is blacked out.
If we presume that everyone is good and honest, then it makes the most sense. But that’s also the result that we would get. Everyone would just let everyone do everything, because they’d all know that they could all be trusted to do good.
If we presume that everyone is bad, then we expect the House to launch an investigation without merit, and we expect that their evidence and accusations deserve to be dismissed rather than heard. But, likewise, we would expect the Senate to set up a scheme whereby they can dismiss anything that they know should be made public but that they can’t afford to allow, and subsequently to use those rules to block those things, since we are also presuming them to be bad.
In the ideal world, you set up a system that works to achieve good, even when nearly all of the participants are bad. Either it does nothing, because nothing is needed, or it works and you get the result you want despite the participants. In such a system, having the ability to block a bad actor from wasting your time would probably be fair.
Ideally, Collins, Romney, and others are forcing McConnell to accept rules that will continue to allow their tiny minority to be able to force good to happen.
So long as there’s a vote and it only requires a simple minority, any seeming impasse is traversable. And if that voting rule exists and yet Collins/Romney vote against allowing some witness or some evidence, it’s likely because they know that particular thing is not going to do much for the House case or is little more than a political jab.
Most votes aren’t taken. McConnell keeps a mental count, through his discussions with everyone, and only brings things forward when he has gotten sign-on from everyone. Looking at the voting record of an individual Congressmen doesn’t tell you whether they vote with or against their party. You have to pay closer attention to small remarks that they give in interviews that buck the party line, to know who is throwing a wrench into things.
Yo dog I herd u liek Tosirmsp so I put Tsitraototp in your Tahemsorhsqpp so you can talk about Turaotnip while you talk about Tsioseachmp.
Mitch thought witnesses were great back in '99, if that’s what the House managers wanted: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/01/22/mitch-mcconnell-1999-interview-witnesses-sot-es-vpx.cnn
Now remind me what party the President was a member of back then, and what party the House managers were…?
Alan Dershowitz has had a similar change of heart: Dershowitz on impeachment reversal: 'I am much more correct right now' | CNN Politics
Ahh, Dershowitz “I wasn’t wrong back then when I said the polar opposite of right now, I’m just* more *correct now”
I agree with what you have explicitly written here.
I disagree with you here on principle. I think the President is a law enforcement officer, and I think the statutes of Congress are the standards by which the President must adhere, moreso than the UCMJ.
My read of the defense is that Mr. Trump brought up Biden/Burisma for a legitimate foreign policy purpose, to reassure Ukraine that the U.S. would not strong-arm Ukraine into dropping an investigation while operating under an obvious conflict-of-interest.
You are writing as if Mr. Trump & associates, who are under an obvious conflict of interest, was strong-arming Ukraine into opening an investigation. That is a separate matter addressed around p.81, where the defense argues that Mr. Trump didn’t strong-arm Ukraine into opening an investigation (that was all Sondland, according to the defense). The point of these later pages, 99-107, is to justify the mention of the DNC/Crowdstrike and Biden/Burisma on the call.
I disagree with you on this, too. I certainly don’t think it is an abuse of power for the President to reassure a foreign country that going forward we won’t pressure them to drop anti-corruption investigations when we have a clear conflict of interest. Mr. Trump would benefit personally from an investigation into Burisma or Biden Jr. But, as I would personally use the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, you would have to convince me that this personal gain was the actual motive behind the mention. The defense brings up a legitimate foreign policy motive, and until you prove to me that this legitimate motive does not apply or contradicts the evidence, I cannot conclude that the mere mention of Biden/Burisma constitutes an abuse of power.
And hint, neither will Republican senators.
I do not see any such accusation in the defense brief. Only that there was a clear conflict of interest when V.P. Biden pressured Ukraine to drop their prosecutor general only days after said prosecutor obtained a court order to seize Burisma’s founder’s property, Mr. Biden’s actual motivation and bipartisan support notwithstanding.
No, from what I can tell the defense argument is that John Durham’s “investigation into the investigation” of Russian collusion prompted or justified the President’s informal MLAT request. The defense also notes that asking about Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election does not imply that Russia did not attempt to interfere with the 2016 election. It also argues that when President Trump said “there are a lot of things that went on” that expanded the scope from just the DNC/Crowdstrike to other forms of Ukrainian interference such as “Ukrainian officials who had sought to undermine then-candidate Trump during the campaign”, eg: Ambassador Chaly with her op-ed for The Hill.
~Max
Here’s some snippets from the exchange, note that there were pauses and other words between. Nadler’s speech included this:
"*So far, I’m sad to say I see a lot of senators voting for a cover-up, voting to deny witnesses – an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote. A vote against an honest consideration of the evidence against the president. A vote against an honest trial. A vote against the United States.
A real trial, we know, has witnesses. You are here to do your duty, permit a fair trial. All the witnesses must be permitted. That’s elementary in American justice. Either you want the truth and you must permit the witnesses, or you want a shameful cover-up. History will judge. So will the electorate.*"
The defense team eventually got to respond and took umbrage, with Jay Sekulow saying,
"That’s the way it works, Mr. Nadler? Is that the way you view the United States Constitution? Because that’s not the way it was written. That’s not the way it’s interpreted. And it’s not the way the American people should have to live. I will tell you what is treacherous, come to the floor of the Senate and say “executive privilege and other nonsense.”
Shortly thereafter the presiding officer chided both sides:
“I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body. Those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.”
~Max
What are you defining here as a “law enforcement officer?” I cannot think of any way in which the President is an LEO. He does not act as one in any practical way. He is not a sworn law enforcement officer in the statutorial sense of any jurisdiction in the United States. He is not en employee of the state in any classification of LEO I can think of; he’s not a cop, sheriff, game warden, FBI agent, MP, air marshal, postal inspector, etc. etc.